DATE: 5/07/2004 11:40:00 AM
Democrats and Religion - Andrew Sullivan is complaining once again about the Catholic Church taking a strong stance on serving communion to politicians that support and vote for ideologies contrary to church teachings. Sullivan says:
From now on, I think, it will be harder and harder for any sincere public Catholic who is a Democrat to continue to be a part of the sacramental life of the church. The Democratic Party, after all, is institutionally supportive of stem-cell research, the right to abortion and at least some recognition of gay couples. Very few leading Democrats are pro-life. If those issues are the criteria for allowing someone in public life to receive Communion as a Catholic, then the Church, in effect, is endorsing one political party over another.Sullivan is trying to imply here that people have a right to be a part of a church despite their willingness or unwillingness to follow that church's doctrine. This is nonsense. Religion is about subjecting your will to that of a higher power. Is Sullivan suggesting that the church should change to accommodate the beliefs of the Democrat party simply to avoid looking partisan? People that are serious about faith allow that faith to change them instead of expecting it to be the other way around.
Sullivan then accuses the Catholic heirarchy of unwittingly doing the bidding of Karl Rove, who seems to be the blogger's whipping boy of choice in the Bush admininstration. Frankly, I don't know why I continue to read Sullivan. The guy is a good writer, but his style has grown more shrill and radical since the president announced his support for the federal marriage amendment. His response to a Corner post by Jonah Goldberg shows signs of an increasingly angry man who doesn't care if he alienates those that have been supportive of him in the past. Sullivan has been good for conservatives - his book on homosexuality is a must-read for conservatives who want to understand the many facets of this social issue. I can certainly understand his reasons for becoming involved in this issue. I just don't agree with his rhetorical approach of late - as Goldberg says, Sullivan has become much like those in the gay movement he once condemned. And that's a shame.